Berakhot 3 · The Lantern

MISHNAH: Anyone whose dead is lying before him [Any close relative who has to mourn for the dead and who has to organize the burial.] is free from reciting Shema‘ and from tefillin. [This is the text of the Yerushalmi and the Mishnah manuscripts. Most sources of the Babylonian Talmud add “and from all obligations of the Torah”, but the commentary of Talmid Rabbenu Yonah to Alfassi declares that good manuscripts do not contain the addition and it also seems that the addition was not accepted by Tosaphot.] The carriers of the bier, their substitutes, and the substitutes of their substitutes, in front of the bier or behind the bier, those that are needed by the bier are free, those that are not needed by the bier are obligated. [In the Babli: “Those behind the bier are obligated”. Rashi explains that those in front of the bier await their turn to carry the bier to the cemetary but that those behind the bier already did that; they follow only to honor the dead person, but not to actively render any more services. The Yerushalmi does not know of such an organization.] All of them are free from the obligation to pray. [According to Maimonides, the obligation from the Torah is only to say some prayer every day; hence, even if the participants in the burial miss one prayer they still have two others to fulfill the Biblical requirement. According to Nachmanides, the obligation to prayer is entirely rabbinical and is eliminated before the Torah obligation to bury fellow Jew.]

HALAKHAH: It was stated [In the first sentence of our Mishnah.] : “And from tefillin.”A [This is a baraita from Moëd Qaṭan (3:5); a similar baraita (with the names of Rebbis Eliezer and Joshua switched) is quoted in Babli Moëd Qaṭan 21a. All authorities in all sources agree that a mourner may not put on tefillin the entire first day of mourning, even if the burial was conducted in the preceding night. So there is no connection between tefillin and the necessity to attend to the burial.] mourner may not put on tefillin on the first day; on the second day he puts on tefillin and when new faces appear during the seven days of mourning he takes them off; these are the words of Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Joshua says: On the first and second days he does not put on tefillin; on the third day he puts on tefillin and if new faces come he does not take them off. If he does not put on tefillin even on the second day, why is it necessary to mention “anyone whose dead is lying before him”? Because he stated the one he stated the other [Since it is necessary to mention that he is free from reciting Shema‘(and from prayer, whether that is stated in the Mishnah or not), the mention of tefillin is added as a memory aid. Since for a long time the Mishnah was transmitted by memory, it could not have been written down. Memory aids are an important part of Mishnah composition.] .

Rebbi Zeïra, Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Eliezer in putting on and Rebbi Joshua in taking off [The mourner puts on tefillin starting the second day after the funeral and does not take them off for a new visitor. In the Babli, this is a ruling of Ulla, one of the commuters between Babylonia and Galilee in the second generation of Amoraïm.] . Rebbi Zeïra inquired: If he put them on on the second day, following Rebbi Eliezer, would Rebbi Eliezer act like Rebbi Joshua, not to take them off? Rebbi Yose bar Abun said: Is it so that Rebbi Eliezer would act like Rebbi Joshua, not to take them off? If it were so, we should say “practice follows Rebbi Eliezer.” [If on the second day, on which we follow Rebbi Eliezer, he takes off tefillin for new visitors, then the ruling should have been: Practice follows Rebbi Eliezer on the second day and Rebbi Joshua from the third day on. Since days are not mentioned, it is clear that Rebbi Joshua’s opinion, that one does not take off tefillin for visits of condolence, does not depend on the day. In the Babli, this is the ruling of Rava, of the generation following Rebbi Zeïra. The Babli quotes from the early Tanna Rebbi Jehudah ben Tema that one puts on tefillin and takes them off even a hundred times. Since R. Jehudah ben Tema, whose time cannot be determined, precedes Rav in any case, his opinion is not of much practical value.]

Rebbi Abun said: It is written (Deut. 16:3) “So that you should remember the day of your exodus from Egypt the totality of the days of your living;” the days when you are occupied with the living, not the days that you are occupied with the dead [The verse deals with the celebration of Passover but is used to indicate that any obligation of remembrance, and tefillin is one of them, are only for living and are invalid once one has to care for the dead. Rebbi Abun here follows the opponents of Ben Zoma in the first chapter who read כֹל֩, “the entirety” and not “all”. The verse gives a complete justification for the Mishnah, viz., that the entire first day is not for tefillin, even after the burial.] .

It was stated: If he wants to be more stringent with himself [The verse deals with the celebration of Passover but is used to indicate that any obligation of remembrance, and tefillin is one of them, are only for living and are invalid once one has to care for the dead. Rebbi Abun here follows the opponents of Ben Zoma in the first chapter who read כֹל֩, “the entirety” and not “all”. The verse gives a complete justification for the Mishnah, viz., that the entire first day is not for tefillin, even after the burial.] one does not listen to him [He is forbidden to put on tefillin.] . Why? Because of the honor of the deceased or because he has nobody to carry his load [In organizing the funeral.] ? What is the difference between them? If he has someone who is carrying his load; if you say because of the honor of the deceased it is forbidden, but if you say because he has nobody to carry his load, here he has somebody to carry his load. Has it not been stated: he is free from taking the lulab [The mourner whose deceased has not yet been buried may not weave the lulab on Tabernacles, nor may he blow the shofar on New Year’s Day. While the rule of lulab applies only to the intermediate days when burials are permitted, one never blows shofar as an obligation except on a holiday.] ? Explain that it refers to weekdays. But has it not been stated: he is free from blowing the shofar. Can you say on weekday? No, on holiday. Rebbi Ḥanina said [Even though it is forbidden to use the Sabbath to prepare for the next day, in these cases it is permitted to position oneself on the Sabbath so that one can start immediately fulfilling a miẓwah after the end of the Sabbath. The Sabbath domain extends 2000 cubits from the last house of one’s city; one may not move outside that domain on the Sabbath.] : Because he is obliged to bring him a casket and burial shrouds as we have stated (Šabbat 23:4): “One waits for nightfall at the borders of the Šabbat [The Venice (and Leyden) text here, כפיטם, is unintelligible. The text given here is that of the Genizah fragments and the parallel in Śemaḥot.] domain to oversee matters for a bride and matters for a deceased to bring for him a casket, burial shrouds, fifes, and women mourners;” it is as if someone was carrying his load.

When does one overturn the couches [The mourner is not allowed to eat reclining on a couch, but has to eat sitting upright on a chair as a sign of mourning. This duty applies to all those who are required to observe the week of mourning. The baraita is found in Massekhet Śemaḥot IX. The entire discussion is taken from Yerushalmi Moëd Qaṭan 3:5; the baraita is also found Babli Moëd Qaṭan 27a.] ? From the moment when the dead left the gate of the courtyard [In the Talmud it is assumed that a house has no door leading to the street outside. A number of houses was always clustered around a courtyard, the door of the house lead into the courtyard, and the courtyard had an exit gate. In that way, privacy was always assured. The statement asserts that the moment the funeral procession is on its way is not when the bier leaves the house but when it leaves the outer gate of the courtyard.] , the words of Rebbi Eliezer. But Rebbi Joshua says, from when the cover plate was laid on the grave [The dead was buried on a bier, not in a casket. Hence, the grave had to be covered by a large flat stone, the golal.] . And when Rabban Gamliel died, after he left the gate of the courtyard, Rebbi Eliezer said to his students: Overturn the couches [When the head of the Synhedrion dies, all are mourners.] . And when the cover plate was laid on the grave, Rebbi Joshua said: Overturn the couches. They said to him: We already did turn them over on the orders of the old man [Even though Rebbi Eliezer was put in the ban since he did not agree with a majority ruling when he knew that the ruling contradicted tradition, it follows from here not only that he continued to lead his Yeshivah but also that in his lifetime, his authority in matters of religious practice remained supreme.] . Friday evening he rights his couch, at the end of Sabbat he overturns them [Since any outward sign of mourning is forbidden on the Sabbath.] .

It was stated: “A dargesh [A kind of bed whose exact nature was unknown even in the time of the Talmud, as seen from the discussion that follows and in Babli Nedarim 56a. Maimonides, in his commentary to Nedarim, defines dargesh as a low couch (used for sitting only in the case of a mourner), much lower than a regular couch called miṭṭah. The Babli tentatively defines dargesh as a couch made of a frame onto which a leather mattress is attached by ropes. This definition may be compatible with the description given in the next section.] is put upright [Most commentators explain that the dargesh is lifted to stand either on its front end or its foot end. But already Rosh (Rabbenu Asher ben Yeḥiël, 14th Century in Mayence and Toledo) has shown in his commentary to Babli Nedarim that this explanation is impossible and that the statement must mean: it is left standing as is. The other commentators are influenced by the version of the Babli which instead of the passive form used here have an active “he stands them up”, which seems to imply an action by the mourner, not passive as is implied here.] and is not turned over. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar [In all places where this is quoted in the Babli, the name is Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, the father of Rebbi and son of Rabban Gamliel. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar was a Tanna of the last generation who lived to see the start of the second generation of Amoraïm.] says, he removes its qlbnṭryn [The spelling and, therefore, the meaning of the word are uncertain. The spelling here is קלבינטרין, that of the Genizah texts and Śemaḥot is קלמנטרין, the corresponding word in the Babli is קרביטין. The last word, according to Z. Frankel, is Greek τὸ κραβάτιον, Byzantine Greek κραββατάριον, “accessories to the bed”; this seems to be correct but is not very instructive. [Cf. also κράββατος “couch, mattress”; Latin grabatus, from Macedonian κράβατος “low couch, camp bed” (E. G.).]] and that is enough [There is a question whether the anonymous Tanna requires more or less that Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar. The quote in Śemaḥot XI reads: דרגש המקפת אינה נכפת. רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר מוריד קלמנטרין שלה וּמניחה כמות שהיא A surrounding dargesh is not turned over. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, he removes the accessories and leaves it as is.” In this formulation, Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar explains that while the dargesh is not turned over, some sign of mourning has to be made. It seems that this is also the explanation here, that Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar adds a certain requirement to the first statement.] .” Rebbi Yosa [Rebbi Yasa.] in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: practice follows Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yose, a couch whose posts [Τὰ ἀνάκλιτα, “things to lean on”; according to both Rashi and Arukh the two posts over which the mosquito screen was hung.] are upright and removed together with it, he takes them off and that is enough.

What is a couch and what is a dargesh? Rebbi Jeremiah [In Babli, Sanhedrin 20a/b, this appears in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan.] said, one that one plaits [The couch has a frame and instead of a box spring it has length-and crosswise strips that are plaited together.] on its body is a couch and one that one does not plait on its body [Maybe, according to the Babli, because instead of a plaited bed of strips it has a base of leather that is fastened only in a few places to the frame.] is a dargesh. But have we not stated (Kelim 16:1) “Bed and [Reading of the Rome and Mishnah mss. The conjunction is missing in the Venice print and Leyden ms.] crib after he rubs them with fish skin [This Mishnah deals with the moment when a wooden implement is finished. Wood in itself cannot become ritually impure but wooden vessels and implements can. The moment when a wooden bed frame is finished so that it can become ritually unclean is the moment when it can be delivered by the carpenter to the customer, after it is polished with the classical equivalent of sand paper.] .” If he plaits on its body, why does he rub [If the entire frame is covered by the strips forming the base of the bed, who cares how the wooden frame looks?] ? Rebbi Eleazar said, explain it with those Caesarean cribs that have holes [The strips are not wound around the frame but go through the holes in the frame, leaving half of it exposed.] .

From where the overturning of beds [Levi Ginzberg noted correctly that all the sermons here point only to the overturning of beds on which one sleeps, not couches on which one sits. The Yerushalmi does not address the question whether during the day the mourner has to sit on the ground or may sit on an overturned couch.] ? Rebbi Crispus [“Curly haired” (Latin, a Roman surname). A student of Rebbi Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish, and teacher of Rebbis Jonah and Yose.] in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: (Job 2:13) “They sat with him towards the ground.” It does not say here “on the ground” but “they sat with him towards the ground,” on something close to the ground. It follows that they were sleeping [Since the friends were sitting with Job for seven days and seven nights, they must have slept “towards the ground”.] on overturned couches. Bar Qappara said: A beautiful form [Greek εἰκών “image”, also “phantom”.] I had in your house and you caused me to overturn [The parallel Megillah 3:5 has לכופתה “to overturn it” (Babylonian Talmudic Hebrew.) The form לכופפה has no parallel in the Yerushalmi and might be a scribal error. Bar Qappara seems to think that persons die because of the sins of their relatives. This is appropriate only for children who cannot die for their own sins since nobody below the age of 20 is liable before the heavenly court. The following, alternate version also shows that Bar Qappara speaks about mourning for small children.] it, you also overturn your bed! Some quote it by the expression “let him overturn; overturn [The imperative כפה “overturn!” is missing in the parallel Moëd Qaṭan 5:3. The agent is the bed on which one not only sleeps but also has sex. Hence, the couch is the agent which produces the birth of a new baby.] the agent!” Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose, both in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. One said, why does he sleep on an overturned coach? So that he should wake up in the night and realize that he is a mourner. The other one said, since he sleeps on an overturned bed he wakes up in the night and realizes that he is a mourner.

[This baraita is found in almost identical form in Babli Berakhot 17b, Moëd Qaṭan 23b, and the Yerushalmi source Śemaḥot X.] All the time that his deceased in lying before him, he eats at his neighbor’s, and if he has no neighbor, he eats in another room. If he has no other room, he makes a wall of separation and eats. If he is unable to make a wall of separation, he turns his face towards the wall and eats. He does not eat reclining; he does neither eat nor drink his fill. He eats neither meat nor drinks wine. One does not allow him to participate in a group to say Grace. If he recited Grace, one does not answer “amen” after him. If others recited Grace, he does not anwer “amen”. That is meant on weekdays. But on the Sabbath, he does eat reclining; he eats meat and drinks wine, eats and drinks his fill. One lets him participate in a group to say Grace. If he recited Grace, one does answer “amen” after him. If others recited Grace, he answers “amen”. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel [In Babli sources, the author is Rabban Gamliel. The difference is essential since practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel even against a plurality of dissenters, but does not necessarily follow Rabban Gamliel. In the interpretation of the Babli, Rabban Gamliel obliges the married male mourner to fulfill his conjugal duties towards his wife. This is rejected as practice by the Babli which requires only that the enjoyment of Sabbath should not be diminished in any situation that is seen by others. The Yerushalmi makes no distinction between public and private obligations.] said: Because I allowed all of these, oblige him for all other obligations of the Torah. If I permitted him temporary life, so much more eternal life [And he who does not fulfill his conjugal duties towards his wife on Sabbath transgresses a positive commandment of the Torah. [The emphasis on this probably is anti-Sadducean; for the Sadducees, any sex act on the Sabbath was a Sabbath desecration punishable by death.]] . Rebbi Judah ben Pazi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel.

If he [The deceased. The other “he” denotes the mourner.] was handed over to the public [The public body organizing funerals, the Ḥevrah Qadishah.] , he may eat meat and drink wine. If he was handed over to the carriers [Paid carriers.] it is as if he was handed to the public.

When Rebbi Yassa died, Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba received his mourners [I. e., Rebbi Yasa’s immediate family and possibly students. A mourner returning from the burial has to receive the first meal from others; the mourners were received with food so that they could go home and prepare the next meal themselves. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba did allow meat and wine for this first meal. (In Galilee, under the influence of late Greek, every ב was pronounced ν; ווה stands for בּא in Rebbi Ḥiyya’s name.)] and gave them meat to eat and wine to drink. When Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba died, Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac received his mourners and gave them meat to eat and wine to drink. When Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac died, Rebbi Zeïra received his mourners and gave them lentils to eat, saying that this was the tradition [It is quoted in Babli Baba batra16b as a Galilean tradition (transmitted by Rabba bar Mari, a student of Rebbi Joḥanan) that Jacob prepared a meal of lentils (Gen. 25:29) for his father Isaac as the first meal after the burial of Abraham. The same tradition is given anonymously in the Galilean Midrash Bereshit rabba 63:16. The substitution of eggs used today instead of lentils is Babylonian (Baba batra 16b). Even though Rebbi Zeïra was Babylonian, the practice might have been that of the city of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac.] . When Rebbi Zeïra was dying he commanded and said: “You should not accept mourning for me this day, tomorrow consolers. [It is not very clear what Rebbi Zeïra was commanding to his students; also the text is quoted in very different forms by Nachmanides (Torat Haädam; ed. Chavel, p. 144) and those who quote from the latter. The only consistent interpretation is that of Levi Ginzberg: Rebbi Zeïra told his students not to be among the mourners the first day nor among those who arrange meals of consolation the next day. While he was a Babylonian by birth, he objected to the Babylonian practice that students mourn only one day for their teacher (Babli Moëd Qaṭan 25b) but wanted them to mourn for him the entire seven days (or not at all). מרזחיּא are those who arrange the meal for the mourners, מַרְזֵחַ; as Levi Ginzberg points out, this meaning in Galilean (not Babylonian) Aramaic is clear from Targum Sheni on Esther 1:2, towards the end.] ”

Rebbi Isaac the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya the Scribe suffered an accident [I. e., a close relative died.] . Rebbis Mana and Yudan went to him. There was good wine, they drank a lot [More than the 10 cups allowed. The entire story is an introduction to the following baraita about the cups to be drunk in a house of mourning. (A cup of wine consists of two thirds water and one third wine).] and laughed. The next day they wanted to visit him again. He said to them: Rabbis, is that what a man does to his friend? Yesterday, the only thing that was missing for us was that we would get up and dance!

It is stated [This is the Yerushalmi formulation, also found in Śemaḥot XIV. The Babli version, Ketubot 8b, has 3 cups before the meal, 3 during the meal, and 4 after the meal for the four benedictions of Grace.] : Ten cups one drinks in the house of a mourner: two before the meal [As an apéritif. The next five are regular drinks to go with the solid food.] , five during the meal, and three after the meal. These are the three after the meal: one for Grace [The regular cup over which Grace is said, as explained in later chapters. Since one may not recite Grace together in the presence of the mourner, one cup is needed for each one of the participants.] , one for those who exercise charity [In honor of those who gave their time and went out in the funeral procession.] , one for those who console mourners [The outsiders who provided the meal and participate in it.] . And when Rabban (Simeon ben) [As is seen from the following and the parallel sources, “Simeon ben” is a scribal error.] Gamliel died, they added another three: One for the Ḥazzan of the community [The religious leader of the community who leads the services and all religious activities including the funerals. (A rabbi is only a religious judge; the ḥazzan was not only the reader but also the ritual slaughterer and general servant of the community.)] , one for the head of the community [The president of the congregation, who was responsible for the establishment and upkeep of the cemetery.] , and one for Rabban Gamliel [He had himself buried in a simple linen shirt and in a plain unadorned wooden casket. Before his time, people were buried in elaborate clothing in expensive caskets. After him it became the Jewish standard that everybody has to be buried in Rabban Gamliel’s way.] . But when the Rabbinical authorities saw that they regularly got drunk they decreed and returned it to the original status [The preceding story, from later Galilean Amoras, shows that “the original way” are the prescribed 10 cups; there is no prohibition of wine at the funeral meal.] .

May a Cohen defile himself [By touching a dead body or carrying his casket (cf. Lev. 21). The main place of these discussions is in Yerushalmi Nazir 7:1.] for the honor of his teacher? The father-in-law of Rebbi Yannai the younger [An Amora of the fourth Galilean generation; so called to distinguish him from Rebbi Yannai, the teacher of Rebbi Joḥanan. It is implied that he was a Cohen.] died. He was both his father-in-law [A Cohen must defile himself for his wife but may not defile himself for any of her relatives.] and his teacher. He asked Rebbi Yose who forbade it. Rebbi Aḥa heard it and said: His students should defile themselves for him. The students of Rebbi Yose defiled themselves for him but ate meat and drank wine [Before the burial.] . Rebbi Mana told them: One of two things you cannot escape. If you are mourners, why did you eat meat and drink wine; if you are not mourners, why did you defile yourselves?

May a Cohen defile himself for the honor of Torah? Rebbi Yose was sitting and teaching when a dead body was brought in [To be eulogized in the Yeshivah.] . He did not say anything either to those who left or to those who remained sitting [He said nothing to those who were Cohanim and did not want to stay in the same house with the dead person even though they were missing some of Rebbi Yose’s lectures, nor to those Cohanim among his students who preferred to study even if it meant staying with the dead person in the same “tent”. Rebbi Yose was undecided whether a Cohen should stay or leave.] .

Rebbi Nehemiah the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said: My father did not walk under the arch of Caesarea [R. Ḥiyya bar Abba was a Cohen, as is also clear from the later account of the visit of Diocletian. He did not pass under an arch attached to a building or archway under which there were graves. The Caesarea here is Caesarea Philippi, on the Jordan near Banias. Even though Caesarea Philippi was built by the Herodian family, it is unlikely that the arch belonged to a building containing a Jewish grave and it is accepted in the Babylonian Talmud (Yebamot 61a), following R. Simeon bar Yoḥai, that only Jewish graves defile “in a tent” but not Gentile ones. The problem is not mentioned in any of the surviving parts of the Yerushalmi; one might infer from the stories told here that the ruling of the Babli was not that accepted in Galilee. Nachmanides (ענין ההוצאה, תורת אדם ed. Chavel, vol. 2, p. קה) adds: “but R. Ammi (who also was a Cohen) did pass under them.” The rest of the paragraph supports the reading of Nachmanides.] . Rebbi Ammi, Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Cohen and Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa went walking on those streets [Latin platea, Greek πλατεῖα (scil. ὁδός), “street”.] of Sepphoris. They came to the arch and Rebbi Cohen left [Probably for the same reason that Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba did not pass under the arch of Caesarea.] . They reached a place of purity and he returned to them. He asked them: “What were you discussing?” Rebbi Ḥizqiah said to Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: “Do not tell him anything!” We do not know whether it was because he was angry that he left since one defiles oneself for words of Torah or whether it was because he [Rebbi Cohen. (The first “he” refers to R. Ḥizqiah.) Since the problem is unresolved, it seems that in the opinion of the Yerushalmi, as a doubt in matters of Torah, he should not defile himself for Torah study. (This is the opinion of the Babli, Avodah zarah 13a, for all defilements that have a Biblical basis.)] was haughty [The reading is that of the Leyden manuscript; the editio princeps of Nachmanides has גייסן. The Venice print has טייסן, “a flyer” which makes no sense. The implication seems to be that Rebbi Ḥizqiah, the Rabbinic authority, was piqued by the fact that Rebbi Cohen, a very minor figure, did not ask his opinion whether he might pass under the arc.] .

It is stated [This baraita is in similar form in other Yerushalmi sources, Nazir 7:1, Śemaḥot IV:25,26, Tosephta Moëd qaṭan 1:12, Avodah zarah 1:8, and in materially different Babylonian tradition in Babli Avodah zarah 13a, Erubin 47a.] : A Cohen may defile himself by leaving the Land [It is not clear which verse of the Torah declares all land outside the Land of Israel ritually unclean but the fact that it is so, is obvious from Amos 7:17. (The Babli takes the impurity of the “land of Gentiles” to be rabbinic, but this refers to the time when no ashes of a red heifer were available anymore and every Cohen was impure from the start, whereas the Yerushalmi baraita might refer to earlier times, cf. Chapter 1, Note 3.) The prohibition for the Cohen to defile himself willingly derives from Lev. 21:1–15.] for civil and criminal suits, for the consecration of the New Moon and intercalation of a year [In the absence of a computed calendar, the last two activities may be exercised outside the Land of Israel only if political circumstances make the consecration in Israel impossible. (The statements up to this point are missing in the Babli parallels; see the preceding Note.)] , to save a field from a Gentile, and he even may leave and lodge a complaint about it [“To lodge a complaint” about real estate usually means to claim ownership against a squatter, in particular if there are no written documents for either party.] , to study Torah and to marry a wife. Rebbi Judah says, if he has a place to study [Any place to study in the Land of Israel.] , he should not defile himself. Rebbi Yose says, even if he has a place to study, he may defile himself, since a man may not have the luck to learn from every teacher. They said about Joseph the Cohen [Joseph (called Issi) ben Yehudah (or Aqabiah) from Huẓal in Babylonia who immigrated to Israel and was a student of Rebbis Eleazar ben Shamua and Yose ben Ḥalaphta. He is a Tanna of the last generation and known as the “last of the pious”. If such a holy man leaves Israel to follow his secondary teacher, the practice of leaving the Land for study purposes is well established.] that he defiled himself and followed his teacher to Sidon [Note the Talmudic vocalization Ṣīdān, in contrast to Biblical Ṣīdōn, close to modern Arabic Ṣaidā.] . In truth [As a rule, any tannaïtic statement label אבל “in truth”, represents established practice. The permission for a priest to leave the Land for marriage is only for an arranged marriage, not for a search for a possible bride.] , they said a priest should not go abroad unless one promised him a wife.

May a Cohen defile himself for the lifting of hands [The priestly blessing (Num. 6:24–26) that the Cohen has to recite during morning prayers. Since the priest has to lift his hands for the blessing, in imitation of Aaron the High Priest (Lev. 9:22), the entire ceremony is called “the lifting of hands”.] ? Gedilah [This is the reading of the Rome manuscript. The names given in other sources, מגבילה, גבילה, are not otherwise attested as Semitic names.] , the brother of Rebbi Abba bar Cohen [An Amora of the fifth generation, student of the Amora Rebbi Yose, two generations after Rebbi Abba bar Kahana.] said before Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: A Cohen defiles [Implying that a Cohen must defile himself to fulfill the obligation of reciting the priestly blessing.] himself for the lifting of hands. Rebbi Aḥa heard it and said: I never told him anything. On second thoughts he said, maybe he heard from me that which Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Every Cohen who stays in the synagogue and does not lift his hands transgresses a positive commandment, and he wanted to say that a positive commandment [The obligation on the Cohen to recite the blessing. The negative commandment is the prohibition for the Cohen to defile himself without good cause.] supersedes a negative commandment. I never told him anything [The obligation to recite the priestly blessing is only on a Cohen who happens to be in the synagogue at the right time. But if a coffin is in the synagogue for an eulogy before the funeral, the Cohen cannot be in the synagogue when the priests are called and, hence, would have to enter the synagogue to be defiled at a moment when there is no positive commandment on him. The hypothetical argument of Rebbi Aḥa could only be resolved in favor of Gedilah in the unlikely event that someone in the synagogue dies suddenly while the priests already assemble for the priestly blessing.] . Bring him in and I will cause him to be flogged!

Rebbi Abbahu was sitting teaching in the fortified [This is the reading of the Rome ms., from Syriac מרדא, “fortified”. Graetz’s translation “revolutionary” is phantasy. The word could be from Greek μερίς, -ίδος, ἡ “part, region, district”. In that case, the translation would be “regional synagogue” (E. G.). The reading of the Leyden ms. and the Venice print, מדדתא, “measuring” or “tripping”, does not make any sense.] synagogue in Caesarea [It is not quite clear whether this was Caesarea on Sea or Caesarea Philippi; the former is usually assumed but it will become clear that the latter is in fact meant.] ; there was a coffin there. There came the time for lifting the hands and they [The Cohanim among his students. They remained sitting for Rebbi Abbahu’s lecture.] did not ask him. There came the time for eating and they asked him. He said to them: For the lifting of hands you did not ask me, for eating you are asking me [Since Rebbi Abbahu did not deliver a ruling, it seems that he had not formed a definite opinion on the matter. Rebbi Yose was one of the last students of Rebbi Abahu; the discussion quoted in the preceding paragraph could not have taken place if a ruling was issued by Rebbi Abbahu.] ? When they heard this, each one was taking himself away and fled.

Rebbi Yannai said: A Cohen defiles himself in order to see the king. When king Diocletian visited here, Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba was seen stepping over graves at Tyre in order to see him [Since Diocletian changed the constitution of the Roman empire from a formally republican one to an absolute monarchy, it is not totally clear whether a Cohen may defile himself only for a ruler who also carries the formal title of “king” or whether he should be a ruler who has power over life and death. Since the rule appears here in the name of Rebbi Yannai who lived under the principate, the second alternative is the more likely one. In the Babli (Berakhot 19b), the ruling (and the statement of Rebbi Joḥanan) is not by an early Amora but by a very early Tanna, Rebbi Eleazar bar Ẓadoq, a Cohen who mentions having seen the late Herodian rulers before the destruction of the Temple. It was reported before that Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba was a Cohen. We also saw before that the Yerushalmi does not seem to exclude Gentile graves from the defilement of a “tent”; hence, it is not proven that Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba stepped over Jewish graves at Tyre. (The Babli, loc. cit., notes that a Cohen is prohibited by Biblical commandment from stepping over a grave only if there is less than a hand-breadth of space between the corpse and the upper cover of the coffin, as explained in Mishnah Ahilot VII; in most cases stepping over a grave is only a rabbinical prohibition which may be lifted in special circumstances.)] . Rebbi Ḥizqiah and Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: There is an obligation to see great persons of government, so that when the kingdom of the dynasty of David will return one will know how to distinguish one government from the other.

When Rebbi Judah the Prince [Rebbi, the son of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel and editor of the Mishnah.] died, Rebbi Yannai proclaimed and said: “There is no priesthood today [All priests are obliged to come to the eulogy and funeral.] .” When Rebbi Judah the Prince, grandson of Rebbi Judah the Prince, died, Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba did push Rebbi Zeïra [Who also was a Cohen and did not want to defile himself. While the Prince Judah I was not only patriarch but also recognized as the greatest rabbinic authority of his day, Judah II was patriarch and a competent but not outstanding scholar. Rebbi Zeïra apparently felt that his scholarship did not merit that a Cohen should defile himself, whereas Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, who like Rebbi Zeïra was a greater scholar than Judah II, insisted that the office of patriarch alone deserved this recognition.] in the Gufna synagogue of Sepphoris and defiled him. When Nahoraï [Nahoraï is really a man’s name. In the parallel in Nazir she is called Yehudinaï, which seems to be the better tradition. She was the sister of Judah II.] , the sister of Rebbi Judah the prince, died, Rebbi Ḥanina [Rebbi Ḥananiah from Sepphoris, a colleague of Rebbi Mana; see Chap. 2, Note 97.] sent for Rebbi Mana but the latter did not come. He said to him, if one does not defile himself for them during their lifetime, so much less in their death. Rebbi Nassa [A student of Rebbi Eleazar and others; a resident of Caesarea whose name is prominent in the part of the Yerushalmi that was edited in Caesarea (Neziqin.)] said, in their death they made them like a corpse of obligation [A corpse of obligation is the body of a Jew who is not the known relative of anybody nearby and, therefore, has nobody who could organize his funeral. In such a situation, the first person who finds him must care for him; even the High Priest, who does not defile himself even for father and mother, must defile himself for a corpse of obligation. It is not too clear who is meant. We may assume that Maimonides writes from tradition when he formulates (Hilkhot Evel, 3:10) ’’When a patriarch dies, everybody defiles himself for him, including Cohanim; they made him like a corpse of obligation for everybody because everybody is required to honor him and everybody is stunned by his death.” Hagahot Maimuniot (ad loc.) note that the sentence “they made him like a corpse of obligation” is the statement of Rebbi Nassa. The discussion goes as follows: The sister of the patriarch Judah II died after him. Rebbi Ḥanina demanded that Rebbi Mana, a Cohen, should defile himself for her. Rebbi Mana retorted that, since he would not defile himself for her during the patriarch’s lifetime, when it would have constituted an honor for the patriarch, he might not do so after the patriarch’s death. Rebbi Nassa, in support of Rebbi Mana, explains that the defilement of Cohanim for the patriarch is because he is considered an obligation for all of Israel.] .

May a Cohen defile himself in honor of his father and mother [As the sequel shows, the only question is whether a Cohen may leave the Holy Land doing something in honor of father or mother. The Biblical prohibitions cannot be violated for the honor of father and mother.] ? Rebbi Yasa heard that his mother had come to Bostra [This city is South of the Hauran mountains, not far from Edreï, on the caravan route to Babylonia. It is not the Biblical Edomite Boṣra. The parallel in the Babli (Qiddushin 31b) is much more explicit, stating that Rebbi Assi’s (Yasa’s) mother was mentally disturbed and that it turned out that her coffin arrived at Bostra.] . He went and asked Rebbi Yoḥanan, may I leave? He said to him, if it is because of danger on the road [To accompany his mother because of the dangers of the road is clearly allowed since it is a matter of life and death.] , leave. If it is in order to honor father and mother, I do not know. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, Rebbi Yoḥanan still needs to answer. He importuned him [Rebbi Yasa did not accept Rebbi Joḥanan’s answer as final, insisting to have a definite yes or no.] , so he said: If you decided to go, return in peace [Rebbi Joḥanan would not order any Cohen to leave the Holy Land in order to meet father or mother but neither would he hinder any one who very much wanted to go.] . Rebbi Eleazar heard this and said: there is no greater permission than that.

May a Cohen defile himself in honor of the public? It is stated: When there are two acceptable roads, one long and pure, the other one short and impure: If the public was walking [In a funeral procession. The baraita is from Semaḥot 4:14. Since the following baraita 15 speaks about digging the grave, the text here speaks of the procession preceding the actual burial. A similar but different baraita in the Babli (Berakhot 19b) deals with people returning after the burial.] on the long one, he goes on the long one; otherwise, he goes on the short one in honor of the public. That refers to impurity by their words [If the impurity is not certain but only possible, the prohibition of passage for the Cohen is only rabbinical, not biblical.] ; also for impurity that is from the words of the Torah? From what Rebbi Zeïra said, so great is the honor of the public that it temporarily pushes aside a prohibition [It is explained in Kilaim 9:2 that if somebody notices that his clothing is forbidden as shaätnez, he may keep his clothes on until he gets home and does not have to stand naked or in his underwear in public.] , that means even impurity that is from the words of the Torah [The Babli comes to the opposite conclusion but, as noted before, it deals with people returning from the funeral, not a funeral procession as here.] .

Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Yose the Galilean [A Galilean Amora of the third generation, teacher of Rebbi Jonah.] , Rebbi Yasa bar Ḥanina: One does not ask rulings on practice before the bier of a deceased [In the Babli (Berakhot 3b) it is stated more generally, in the name of R. Joshua ben Levi, that words of Torah are forbidden in presence of a coffin. According to Rashi, the reason is (Prov. 17:5): “He who scoffs at the poor blasphemes his Maker.” Since the dead person can no longer study Torah, he is poor in this respect.] . But Rebbi Yoḥanan asked Rebbi Yannai before the bier of Rebbi Simeon ben Yoẓadaq [This is the correct reading of the Rome ms. R. Simeon bar Yoẓadaq was an Amora of the first generation, one of the teachers of Rebbi Yoḥanan. The Leyden ms. has שמואל בר יוצדק by a scribal error.] about him who dedicated his holocaust sacrifice for the upkeep of the Temple, and he answered him [The Mishnah (Temurah 32a) states that a forbidden substitution is valid only from lesser to higher sanctity. The highest sanctity of a sacrifice is the עוֹלָה, the holocaust, which is totally burnt on the altar, whereas gifts for the upkeep of the Temple are only a monetary obligation. So it should be impossible to dedicate an ‘olah for the upkeep of the Temple. However, a baraita (Babli Temurah 32b) states that a holocaust which afterwards was dedicated for the upkeep of the Temple cannot be slaughtered unless redeemed first and the money given to the Temple. The answer given there (presumably by Rebbi Yannai) is that the obligation of redemption is purely rabbinical, a kind of fine, but that from the Torah the second dedication is invalid.] ! Let us say when he was far away [So that the deceased could not have heard them even were he still alive.] or when they were bringing him to the study hall [Most commentators explain that Rebbis Yoḥanan and Yannai were outside the Bet-Hamidrash. However, that would be the same as “being far away”. Therefore, it seems that the correct interpretation is given by R. Zacariah Frankel, that a eulogy of a Torah teacher in his own school by necessity must involve words of Torah.] . But Rebbi Jeremiah asked Rebbi Zeïra before the bier of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac! Let us say that he answered him when he was far away; when he was close he did not answer him.

It is stated: The carriers [The carriers of the bier in the funeral procession, members of the “holy society”.] may not wear sandals [According to Ṭure Zahav on Shulḥan Arukh Yore Dea 358:3, this applies only to professional carriers, or members of a society that monopolizes the mitzvah of carrying the bier, who will have to walk barefooted. However, it seems that shoes without laces would be permitted by the Yerushalmi.] lest a shoelace of one of them break so he would be eliminated from the good deed.

Rebbi Zeïra bent down [Most commentators explain that Rebbi Zeïra fell down. But the parallels quoted in Levy’s dictionary show that Aramaic שרע is the parallel of biblical Hebrew סרח, “overhanging”. The speaker was leaning down over the railing of his pulpit.] during a eulogy. They wanted to straighten him up and found that he tarried [The Aramaic עני may mean 1) to become poor, 2) to take one’s time, tarry, 3) to empty oneself. In Yerushalmi sources, the form איעני is found only in meaning 2). The verse quoted reads in full: “It is better to go to a house of mourning than to go to a wedding. Since that is the end of all humanity, let the one who is alive take it to heart.”] . They said to him, what is this? He said to them, because we will go there, following (Eccl. 7:2): “Let the one who is alive take it to heart.”

MISHNAH: When they buried the deceased and returned, if they are able to start and finish before they form the row [Before the mourners leave for their home, the other participants of the funeral form two lines and the mourners pass in the row between them. While they pass, words of consolation are spoken to them. Today, that ceremony is performed in the cemetary so that the Mishnah becomes void. In talmudic times, the burial was in the cemetary far from the city, but the ceremony of the row took place at the entrance to the city. There may be a long enough walk from cemetary to town that the prescribed time for Shema‘ would pass. The words “start” and “finish” refer to the recitation of Shema‘.] they should start, otherwise they should not start. Those who stand in the row, the innermost are exempt [Since the mourners can see and hear them, they are doing a good deed and cannot be distracted by other obligations. The “outer ones” are those who cannot be seen by the mourners.] and the outer ones are obliged.

HALAKHAH: [The entire discussion of this Mishnah is repeated word by word in Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 2:2 (fol. 20a).] It is stated: “One does not take the dead for burial close to the recitation of the Shema‘ unless one does it one hour in advance or one hour afterwards, so that they may recite and pray.” But did we not formulate: “When they buried the deceased and returned” [How can the situation dealt with in the Mishnah ever arise if the baraita is correct?] ? Explain it for those who thought that they have a free period [In the absence of reliable clocks. In the parallel in the Babli (Berakhot 19a), it is stated flatly that the restriction of the baraita does not apply to funerals of important persons. In the opinion of the Babli, the situation envisaged by the Mishnah can apply to previously planned funerals.] but they did not have a free period.

It is stated [Tosephta Berakhot 2:11. This Tosephta comes after the one dealing with the funeral (which will be quoted later in this Halakhah.) Hence, it clearly deals with a eulogy after the funeral. The text of the Tosephta follows that of the Genizah fragments; it is slightly corrupted in the Venice (and Leyden) texts that have ההספד instead of the unusual המהספד (the corresponding word in the Babli would be המספיד.) [A seemingly similar baraita in the Babli, Berakhot 19a, deals with a eulogy before burial and has nothing in common with the text given here.]] : The eulogizer and all who participate in a eulogy interrupt for the recitation of Shema‘ and do not interrupt for prayer. It happened that our teachers interrupted for the recitation of Shema‘ and prayer. Did we not formulate: “If they are able to start and finish”? Our Mishnah speaks of the first day, what is stated for the second day.

Rebbi Samuel ben Eudaimon [An Amora of the fifth Galilean generation, student of Rebbi Mana. The paragraph added deals with the problem of whether to start or not; it is a kind of appendix to the first two paragraphs. After that digression, one will return to the discussion of the Mishnah.] said: He who enters the synagogue and finds them standing and praying [The Amidah prayer.] , if he knows that he could start and finish before the reader starts, so that he may answer “Amen”, he may pray, otherwise he should not pray. About which “Amen” did they talk? Two Amoraïm, one says the Amen of “the holy King” [The third benediction of the Amidah. “He Who hears prayer” is the last of the middle benedictions of weekday prayers (15th in Israel, 16th in Babylonia). The statement refers to the old Galilean usage that Qedushah was recited only on special days; it probably was not recited in the Sabbath afternoon prayers and, hence, it is not mentioned that one should be able to respond to Qedushah.] and the other says the Amen of “He Who listens to prayer”. Rebbi Phineas said, they do not disagree. He who said: the Amen of “the holy King”, on the Sabbath, and he who said: the Amen of “He Who listens to prayer” on weekdays.

It is stated (Tosephta Berakhot 2:11): “Rebbi Judah says, if they all are standing in one row, those who are standing because of honor are obliged, those because of mourning are exempt [In the text of the Babli (Berakhot 19b), Rashi reads: “those who come because of themselves”, not “because of honor”, but most manuscripts and old authors have “because of honor”. Also, in the Babli only the second part of the Tosephta is attributed to Rebbi Yehudah. According to Rashi, only those are obliged to read the Shema‘ who come out of curiosity whereas according to most others those who come to honor the dead and his family but do not actively console are not exempt. The Babylonian Talmud makes no comment; we have to assume that it accepts the position of R. Samuel Tosephta.] . When they descend for a eulogy, those who see inside are exempt, those who do not see inside are obliged [Since they cannot be seen by the mourners, the may recite the Shema‘ for themselves without offending anybody.] .” It would be that what we stated: “Those who stand in the row, the innermost are exempt and the outer ones are obliged” is the last teaching [The question is, what is the last teaching? We are informed that the original custom was that the mourners walk between two rows of participants who greet them with words of consolation. When competition grew in Sepphoris, it seems because people were jostling for the best positions (those who did not make it to the front rows could not be seen or heard by the mourners), Rebbi Yose decreed that the mourners should stay put and all others march by them to greet and console them. This is the case dealt with by Rebbi Judah, that there is only one row (moving, not standing). An otherwise unknown Rebbi Samuel declares that the innovation of Rebbi Jose did not stand the test of time and in his time the consolers stand and the mourners move. Rebbi Samuel’s opinion is the “last teaching”, Rebbi Yose’s “the first teaching”. In the first teaching, there are no people in outer rows, so the Mishnah automatically has to apply to the last teaching.] , and what is stated: “Those who are standing because of honor are obliged, those because of mourning are exempt”, is the first teaching [Since the entire Tosephta is Rebbi Judah’s, it speaks of the case where there is only one row. (This argument is not applicable to the text quoted in the Babli.)] . And what we have stated there (Mishnah Sanhedrin 2:2): “When he [The High Priest. When he goes out, he is accompanied by his executive officer; when he consoles mourners the executive goes first, the High Priest second, and everybody else in one orderly row after him. This is possible only in the scenario envisaged by Rebbi Yose; it is shown that the practice instituted by Rebbi Yose at Sepphoris (in the second half of the second century C. E.) is in effect an old Jerusalem practice from the time before the destruction of the Temple, as stated explicitly in Babli Sanhedrin19a, where it is noted that also under that system people quarrelled in Jerusalem. Here the copyist (or the editor) seems to have doubts whether to go with the definition of “first” and “last” as above or to call “first” the first practice reported by Rebbi Ḥanina and “last” the second one. Hence, there are two opinions about the attribution but the meaning is clear. If the uncertainty is the editor’s, then the note “Another opinion: the first” belongs to the text. If it is the scribe’s or some reader’s, then it is a gloss that has entered the text from the margin. For consistency, the hypothesis of a gloss is preferable.] consoles others, all the people stand one behind the other and the executive officer becomes a partition between himself and the people”, the last teaching. (Another opinion: the first.) Rebbi Ḥanina said: Originally, all families were standing still and the mourners passed between them. When competition increased in Sepphoris, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥalaphta decreed that the families should pass by and the mourners stand still. Rebbi Samuel Tosephta [In the Venice text, “Rebbi Simeon of the Tosephta”. The name given in the text is from the Geniza fragments (Rebbi Samuel Tosephta) and similar to the parallel in Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 2:2 (fol. 20a) “Rebbi Samuel of Sofephta”. Tosephta might be the region of Northern Armenia, called Thospitis by Ptolemy, which was the birthplace of Rabba Tosphaä, one of the later heads of the Academy of Sura in Babylonia.] said: Matters returned to their original state.

MISHNAH: Women, slaves, and minors are exempt from reciting the Shema‘ and from phylacteries but are obliged for prayer, mezuzah, [While both phylacteries and mezuzot are based on verses in Shema‘, their status is different.] and Grace for food.

HALAKHAH: Women from where? (Deut. 11:19) “You must teach them to your sons.” To your sons but not to your daughters [The father is unconditionally obliged to teach his sons Torah; since this is an integral part of Shema‘, the same is valid for reciting the Shema‘. It is general practice that women may recite Shema‘; it follows that in the opinion of the Yerushalmi, women may study any subjects of Torah they wish. [The Babli, Berakhot 20b, simply notes that Shema‘ is an obligation to be executed at stated times, of which women and slaves are automatically exempted. Since the Yerushalmi brings this argument in relation to other things later in this section, it follows that for it the recital of Shema‘ is simply an aspect of Torah study and Torah study is required “day and night”, not depending on any particular time.]] .

Slaves from where? (Deut. 6:4): “Hear, o Israel, the Eternal, our Power, the Eternal is unique.” He who has only one Lord, this excludes the slave who has another lord [As explained in the preceding paragraph, the Yerushalmi does not refer to the obligation of reciting Shema‘ as an obligation to be performed at stated times; therefore, a separate argument is necessary to free from the obligation slaves who accepted Judaism.] .

Minors from where? (Ex. 13:9) “So that the Torah of the Eternal should stay in your mouth”, at a time when he is permanent in it [This paragraph is exceedingly difficult for two reasons. 1) It is a generally accepted principle that minors are not obliged to do anything; it is their parents who are obliged to teach them and see to it that they perform miẓwot. 2) The verse deals only with tefillin. In the Yerushalmi tradition, the statement and the tradition are not unquestioned. Both Mekhiltot (Mekhilta dR. Ismael, ed. Horovitz-Rabin, p. 68; Mekhilta dR. Simeon bar Ioḥai, p.41), the Tannaïtic commentaries to Exodus, give the same commentary on the next verse (Ex. 13:10): “You must preserve this decree in its time, from year to year”. “Why has this been said? Because it has been said (v.9): ‘It shall be for you a sign on your hand’, I might understand this to include minors. And it is logical, since mezuzah is a positive commandment and tefillin are a positive commandment; if you find that mezuzah applies to minors the same way it applies to adults you might think that tefillin apply to minors the same way they apply to adults, but the verse says ‘you must preserve this decree’, I spoke only about those able to watch over their tefillin; from here they said: If a minor knows how to watch his tefillin, his father makes him tefillin.” The argument presupposes the statement that minors are obliged to have mezuzot on their doors (meaning that if they live alone, the rabbinic authorities have to see to it that they have mezuzot on their doors). Mezuzah and tefillin are always mentioned together in the first two paragraphs of Shema‘. Hence, one may assume that they are identical in those details that are not spelled out. Both Yerushalmi and Mekhiltot agree that some explanation is needed to distinguish between the rules for mezuzah and those for tefillin. However, the Mekhiltot extend the obligation of tefillin to all school children whereas the Yerushalmi restricts it to those for whom the study of Torah is a permanent obligation, i. e., from Bar-Miẓwah onwards. In itself the argument about minors is totally irrelevant; it is needed to exclude the opinion of the Mekhiltot.] .

They are obliged to pray so that everybody ask mercy for himself [Here again, we have a divergence between Yerushalmi and Babli. The Yerushalmi states that prayer is an obligation not because it is a Biblical commandment but because the rabbis thought that everybody has to implore divine mercy for himself. In the Babli (Berakhot 20b), the argument of the Yerushalmi is repeated but then it is stated that in Psalms (Ps. 55:18) three times daily are stated for prayer and if that were a general obligation, women would be automatically dispensed from it. Hence, it follows that the rabbinical obligation of prayer for women cannot mean for the Babli an obligation to pray at those stated times, which it could mean in the interpretation of the Yerushalmi. The opinion of the Babli is that of Maimonides, the possible one of the Yerushalmi that of Nachmanides.] .

And for mezuzah, as it is written (Deut. 6:9): “You shall write them on the doorpost of your house and your gates [This is an obligation of ownership, not of person.] .

And grace after meals, as it is written (Deut. 8:10): “You will eat and be satiated; then you must praise the Eternal, your God. [According to the Yerushalmi, women and slaves are required to recite Grace from the Torah since everybody who eats must give praise. In the Babli (loc. cit.), this remains questionable.] ”

There (Mishnah Qiddushin 1:7) we have stated: “Every positive commandment that is activated by time, men are obliged by it but women are exempt. Every positive commandment that is not activated by time, both men and women are obliged by it.” (Tosephta Qiddushin 1:10): “What is a positive commandment that is activated by time? For example sukkah, lulab, shofar, and tefillin. What is a positive commandment that is not activated by time? For example lost articles [The obligation to return found articles and stray animals to their owners in Deut. 22:1–3.] , sending away the nest [The obligation to send away the mother if eggs or chicks are taken from a nest in Deut. 22:6–7.] , railing [The obligation to make a fence around a flat roof in Deut. 22:8.] , and ẓiẓit [The obligation to wear ẓiẓit in the third section of Shema‘ where it is stated that they must be seen, so garments, worn exclusively in the night when it is dark, do not need ẓiẓit. The Babli (Qiddushin 33b–34a; Menaḥot 43a) mentions neither ẓiẓit nor the opinion of Rebbi Simeon in its quotes from the Tosephta; it assumes the position of Rebbi Simeon to be generally accepted.] . Rebbi Simeon exempts women from ẓiẓit because it is a positive commandment activated by time.” Because a nightgown is exempt from ẓiẓit. Rebbi Lia said: The reason of the rebbbis is that, if a garment is designated both for daytime and for night, it needs ẓiẓit.

It is stated: “For every obligation that a man is free of, he may help the congregation to fulfill their obligation, except for Grace.” But have we not stated: “Anybody who is not obligated may not help the congregation to fulfill their obligation”? If he were obligated, he could help them to fulfill even if he himself already fulfilled it! [“To be free” does not mean the same as “not being obligated” but rather “having already acquitted himself of the obligation.” The first statement means, e. g., that someone who already has heard the shofar on Rosh Hashanah nevertheless may blow the shofar and recite the appropriate benediction for somebody who did not hear the blowing. The only exception mentioned is that of saying Grace. The second statement means, e. g., that a woman, not being obligated to hear the shofar, may not blow the shofar for a man who is obligated. Since everybody is obligated to say Grace after a meal, there seems to be no reason why Grace should be exempted in the first statement.] Rebbi Lia said: There is a difference about Grace since it is written (Deut. 8:10): “You will eat and be satiated, then you must praise the Eternal, your God;” he who ate must give praise. Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Judah ben Pazi were sitting together and saying: It would be reasonable [The exemption mentioned for Grace should be extended to the recital of Shema‘ and prayer. The argument for Shema‘ rests on the expression (Deut. 6:7) ושננתם ל֩בניך “you should repeat it to your sons”; it implies a personal action and cannot be performed by listening to a reader. The discussion of prayer presupposes the Galilean practice that the reader recite the Amidah aloud, without silent prayer, and it is stated that everyone is required to say the prayer with the reader, not just to respond with “Amen”. In Babylonia the question did not arise since silent prayer was always required before the repetition by the reader.] for reciting the Shema‘ that every single person should repeat it aloud. It would be reasonable for prayer that every single person should pray for mercy by himself.

What [It seems that this paragraph is put here because 1) sukkah and lulab were mentioned as examples of temporary obligations and 2) it was the subject of a discussion between Rebbi Yose (the Amora) and one of his colleagues.] is the difference between sukkah and lulab? Sukkah does not need a benediction after the first night of the holiday, lulab needs a benediction all seven days [This is a shortened version of a Tosephta (Berakhot 6:9,10) discussed more in detail later (Halakhah 9:4, fol. 14a) and in Babli Sukkah 46a, where Rebbi states that one makes a benediction all seven days of Sukkoth and that Babylonian practice follows Rebbi. Galilean practice followed the rule that the benediction “Who commanded us to dwell in the sukkah” was recited only once during the entire holiday. About lulab, the Babli notes correctly that in the absence of a Temple, taking the lulab after the first day is a rabbinic ordinance, not a Torah commandment; hence, the obligation of the second day cannot be covered by the benediction of the first. It may be that this distinction caused Rebbi Yose to be dissatisfied with the first explanation.] . Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Aḥa were sitting and saying, what is the difference between sukkah and lulab? Sukkah applies both nights and days, lulab applies only during daytime [While sukkah is one continuous obligation, lulab represents seven distinct periods of obligation of which each one merits a new benediction.] . Rebbi Jacob the Southerner objected: But the study of Torah applies by night as by day? How is this? Sukkah will end; the study of Torah, it is impossible that it should ever end [It is unreasonable to say that a boy on becoming Bar Miẓwah should recite the benediction for the Torah once and not repeat it for his entire lifetime. Sukkah at least gets a new benediction every year.] .

It is stated [Tosephta Berakhot 5:17, Babli Berakhot 20b, Sukkah 38a. The entire piece is found in Sukkah 3:11, Rosh Hashanah 3:9.] : In truth, they said a woman may say Grace for her husband [He who does not know how to say Grace may listen to a companion recite Grace aloud. The Yerushalmi has no problem with women or slaves but for the Babli the question remains whether women may in fact recite Grace for males who have an obligation from the Torah, i. e., who actually ate their fill.] , a slave for his master, and a minor for his father. Did not Rebbi Aḥa say in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Nahoraï: All they said about a minor is for the latter’s education [The minor must be educated; there is an obligation on the father to teach him all religious obligations but the minor himself is not obligated and, by the previously mentioned principle, cannot perform any religious duty for others.] ? Explain it that he recites after him [The adult repeats word by word what the minor says, so the adult in fact has recited all benedictions.] , as we stated there [In some Tosephta collection no longer extant.] : “He for whom a slave, a woman, or a minor were reading it, repeats after them what they are saying, and may it be a curse for him. In truth, they said there should be a curse on the man of twenty years who needs the child of ten.”

MISHNAH: He who had qeri [An emission of semen.] thinks but does not recite any benediction before or after [The recitation of Shema‘.] ; on his food he recites the benedictions afterwards [Grace, which is an obligation from the Torah. He does not recite the rabbinic benedictions before the meal.] but not before. Rebbi Yehudah says, he recites benedictions before and after.

HALAKHAH: What does he think of? The benedictions [But the Shema‘, which is an obligation from the Torah, he recites normally. But Rashi explains “he thinks the Shema‘ ”, and this also seems to be the opinion of Maimonides in his decision based on the Babli.] .

The Mishnah deals with a place where there is no water [It will be confirmed in the next Halakhah that even Rebbi Yehudah agrees that after an emission one may not recite unless he washed first. So this statement is agreed to by everybody in the Yerushalmi.] and follows Rebbi Meïr, as it is stated (Tosephta Berakhot 2:13): “He who had qeri but no water to immerse himself reads the Shema‘ but not so that he himself can hear it, but he does not recite any benediction before or after; these are the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, he reads so that he himself can hear it and recites benedictions before and after. [The Babli (Berakhot 22a) quotes a parallel but different baraita in which the position of “the Sages” is in the name of R. Yehudah.] ”

It is stated (Tosephta Berakhot 2:12): “A sick person who had qeri on whom fell nine qab [One qab equals 4 log, one log is .533 liter or .164 gallons, so that a qab equals approximately .563 gallons, 9 qab about 5.07 U. S. gallons. One seäh is 6 qab or about 3.38 gallons, so 40 seäh equal about 135.2 gallons or 512 liter. In Roman measures, the log corresponds to the sextarius, and the seäh to the urna. That makes 40 seah equal to a Roman culleus.] of water (and a pure one on whose head and body fell three log of drawn water) [The parenthesis is not in the Tosephta or in the quote in the Babli 22b, and does not belong here. The impurity of the man with emission is Biblical (Lev. 15:16) but the prohibition of studying Torah and speaking sacred words is from the institutions of Ezra, i. e., it is pre-rabbinic. On the other hand, the impurity of a person washing himself with drawn water after an immersion in a miqweh belongs to the “18 ordinances” passed by the adherents of the house of Shammai before the Jewish revolt against the Romans and is purely rabbinical. It was passed because most miqwaöt were not built but were water holes in natural caves that were naturally muddy and people had the tendency to wash off the mud after they emerged from the miqweh. The rabbis of the time were afraid that in time washing would supersede immersion as (illegal) means of purification, so they decreed that washing after immersion resurrects some mild form of ritual impurity.] is clean for himself but he cannot lead the public in their obligations until he immersed himself in 40 seah. Rebbi Yehudah says, 40 seah in all cases [This translation is not guaranteed. The Babli (loc. cit.) takes the statement of Rebbi Yehudah to mean that he requires the stated amount of water but not that it should be in a miqweh that satisfies all rules. However, as Levi Ginzberg points out, that requires the expression בכל מקום which is found in manuscripts of the Babli; it represents the majority opinion in the Babli. The idiomatic translation of מכל מקום is “in every case”, including the sick person. R. Yehudah then is more restrictive than the other sages if water is available, and this may be the meaning of the Yerushalmi. If the parenthesis is genuinely part of this baraita, then the latter interpretation is the only possible one since an impurity imposed to enforce immersion in a genuine miqweh can be removed only by such an immersion.] .”

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Qeri is only from sexual intercourse. Rav Huna said, even if he saw himself enjoying in his dream. They wanted to say, only from a woman. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose, both of them say, even from something else. There (Mishnah Yoma 8:1) we have stated: Eating, drinking, washing, anointing, wearing shoes, and sexual intercourse are forbidden on Yom Kippur. And it was stated in that respect: Men with qeri immerse themselves secretly in their normal way on Yom Kippur [In Tosephta Kippurim 4:5 and Babli Yoma 88a the reading is: Men with qeri immerse themselves normally on Yom Kippur; one speaks of a full immersion and “in secret” is not mentioned. The Tosephta seems to be a Babylonian formulation. (The entire paragraph is also found in Yerushalmi Yoma 8:1).] . Does this not contradict Rebbi Joshua ben Levi since Rebbi Joshua ben Levi says, qeri is only from sexual intercourse? Explain it if he had intercourse on the previous day and forgot and did not immerse himself. But it is stated: It happened that Rebbi Yose ben Ḥalaphta was seen immersing himself secretly on Yom Kippur. Can you say about that holy body that he forgot [Hence, the interpretation of Rav Huna is incorrect and that of Rebbis Yose (the Amora) and Jonah is correct.] ?

Rebbi Jacob bar Abun said: This immersion has only been enacted so that Jews should not be like chickens, that one would have sex: mount, descend, and eat [This means that sexual relations should be stripped of their animal nature as much as possible; the sanctification of marital duties applies to all Jews. The parallel in the Babli (Berakhot 22a, in the name of R. Yose bar Abun) reads: “so that scholars should not be found near their wives like roosters.” One may conclude that there are two main differences between Galilean and Babylonian practice: In the Yerushalmi, the duty of immersion applies uniformly to everybody and requires a kosher miqweh, in the Babli it is necessary only for study and may be done by washing. R. Jacob bar Abun was a Galilean Amora of the third generation, colleague of R. Jeremiah. There is no hint anywhere that one is forbidden to eat after intercourse or before immersion; the expression here is just a graphic expression of the behavior of cocks (commentary of Levi Ginzberg).] .

Rebbi Ḥanina passed by the gates of public baths [Greek δημόσιος, α, ον, adj. “public”, here understood with βαλανεῖα “baths”. The public baths certainly were not open before dawn and Rebbi Ḥanina orders the people there not to waste their time but to study Torah (being from the first Amora generation, he said “to study Mishnah”) since the interpretation given later to qeri only hinders one to pronounce the Divine name (and, hence, to pray) but not to study where the Divine name is seldom mentioned and, if mentioned at all, only by paraphrase. On the other hand, when morning came and the time for morning prayers, he told those that had intercourse to go and immerse themselves before praying.] before dawn and said: What are those who have to immerse themselves in the morning doing here? They should go and study Mishnah! In the morning he said: He who has to do it shall go and do it.

What are the rules about thinking [About Torah subjects. While this paragraph seems to be somewhat out of place here, it is introduced because of the later discussion of the status of a man with qeri in the study of Torah subjects.] in the toilet? Ḥizqiah said it is permitted; Rebbi Yasa said it is forbidden. Rebbi Zeïra said, all difficult arguments that I had became clear to me there. Rebbi Eleazar bar Simeon [The son of Rebbi Simeon bar Yoḥai. His difficult argument is detailed in Babli Zebaḥim 102b. In Babylonia (Babli Berakhot 24b) it was accepted by everybody that thinking about Torah subjects in a toilet is forbidden except if the person cannot help doing it. In Galilee the practical rule was to allow it.] said, the entire difficult subject of ṭĕbūl yōm became clear to me there.

Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Tanḥum ben Rebbi Ḥiyya: In the days of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi they wanted to abolish this immersion because of the Galilean women who became sterile [Since in Galilee the immersion was required for everybody, not only for Torah study as in Babylonia, it also applied to women. In winter in upper Galilee, water sometimes freezes and all miqwaöt were cold-water miqwaöt; in a parallel in Babli Berakhot 22a, Rav Huna notes that instead of a miqweh one could use a hot bath in Babylonia.] because of the cold. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi told them: Do you want to uproot something that fences Israel off from sin? What means: Fences Israel off from sin? It happened that a watchman of vinyards wanted to have an affair with a married woman. By the time they were preparing a place where they could immerse themselves, passers-by came by and the sin was not committed [A parallel in Babli Berakhot 22a is explicitly designated as a baraita, dating from Mishnaic times, and applying the need for immersion only to the man. [Levi Ginzberg conjectures that the watchman was a bachelor; hence, he could not use the public miqweh (except on holiday eve) without drawing public attention to his unmarried sexual activities. However, it is stated explicitly at the end of this halakhah that a miqweh was not used for this immersion.]] . It happened that someone wanted to have an affair with Rebbi’s slave girl. She said to him: If my mistress does not immerse herself, I do not immerse myself [Meaning that as an unmarried woman she does not frequent the miqweh and, therefore, cannot have sex with any man. The slave girl was quite famous for speaking better classical Hebrew than the rabbis.] . He said to her: Are you not like an animal [The argument here is not perfectly clear. There is a verse in Ezechiel 23:20, speaking about the heathen, "for the flesh of donkeys is their flesh and the semen of horses is their semen" (where "flesh" as human limb here and elsewhere means the penis, the only boneless limb), but that speaks only about males and, in any case, the slave in a Jewish household is a semi-Jew, becoming a full Jew on manumission without any formality of conversion. Hence, no verse applying to heathen is appropriate here. The real reason seems to be the command given to Adam that "a man shall leave his father and his mother and stick to his wife" (Gen. 2:24); since a slave is not legally able to contract a marriage, he is missing the essential human quality of having to marry. That makes questionable humans out of adults who are bachelors by choice. [The sex life of slaves is not discussed in the Yerushalmi. In the Babli (Niddah 47a) it is stated that slaves may have sex with anybody except a Jew (and a married Gentile woman).]] ? She said to him: Did you not hear that one who has relations with an animal will be stoned, as it is said (Ex. 22:18): “Anyone lying with an animal shall certainly be executed.”

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba [Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba the Babylonian quotes here the Babylonian tradition that this immersion is appropriate only for Torah scholars, in contrast to the Galilean practice shown be the preceding and the following examples that the unlearned were the most ardent practitioners of the ritual.] said: They ordered this immersion essentially only for study. For if you tell him that he is permitted, he is going to say: “I shall go, satisfy my needs, and then come and study what is needed,” but since you say that it is forbidden, he will come and study all he needs [Not having sex in those nights where study starts before dawn, i. e., all week except Friday night.] . There [Any תמן "there" in the Yerushalmi means Babylonia. The ruling is not mentioned in the Babli explicitly but there is a parallel to the statement attributed to Rebbi Eleazar, and a statement by the 10th century Rav Hai Gaon (Ozar Hageonim Berakhot p. 56), that in his time scholars in Babylonia did not pray until they had cleansed themselves by washing.] they said it is even forbidden to hear words of Torah.

Rebbi Judah bar Titus [A Galilean Amora from Caesarea Philippi, of the fourth generation.] , Rebbi Aḥa in the name Rebbi Eliezer: as at the start (Ex. 19:11) “They shall be prepared on the third day, do not approach a woman [The impurity of qeri for the study of Torah is derived from the theophany at Sinai where the Israelites purified themselves for three days from any impurity caused by marital relations. This gives support to the opinion stated earlier by R. Joshua ben Levi that the impurity of qeri is only caused by sexual intercourse. The Talmud notes (Babli Šabbat 86a, Yerushalmi Šabbat 9:3, fol. 11c) that a separation of three days was needed only for the women since a woman may lose live sperm from her body up to three days after intercourse. For men a simple immersion in water the next day would be enough. This proves that women were included by Divine decree among the original recipients and students of the Torah; the inclusion of women in the Tosephta quoted in the next paragraph is intentional.] .”

It is stated [Tosephta Berakhot 2:12. In the parallel in the Babli, Berakhot 22a, only males are in the list. The baraita in the Babli is a Babylonian formulation of material ascribed to the students of Rebbi Aqiba.] : “Males and females with discharges [From their genitals, the male zab suffering from gonorrhea and similar diseases, the female bleeding other than menstruating, see Lev. Chapter 15.] , menstruating women, and women having given birth [Whose basic impurity is one week after having a son, two weeks after having a daughter; Lev. 12:1–8.] read in the Torah and study midrash [This is the derivation of practical rules from the Biblical text, as in the Midrĕshē Hălākhāh to the last four books of the Pentateuch.] , practical rules, and homiletics; the person with qeri is forbidden all these.” Rebbi Abba bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi [The argument here is not perfectly clear. There is a verse in Ezechiel 23:20, speaking about the heathen, “for the flesh of donkeys is their flesh and the semen of horses is their semen” (where “flesh” as human limb here and elsewhere means the penis, the only boneless limb), but that speaks only about males and, in any case, the slave in a Jewish household is a semi-Jew, becoming a full Jew on manumission without any formality of conversion. Hence, no verse applying to heathen is appropriate here. The real reason seems to be the command given to Adam that “a man shall leave his father and his mother and stick to his wife” (Gen. 2:24); since a slave is not legally able to contract a marriage, he is missing the essential human quality of having to marry. That makes questionable humans out of adults who are bachelors by choice. [The sex life of slaves is not discussed in the Yerushalmi. In the Babli (Niddah 47a) it is stated that slaves may have sex with anybody except a Jew (and a married Gentile woman).]] : He may study practical rules [Which need only memorization, not independent thinking, in contrast to the construction of sermons which are supposed to be original with the preacher. In this respect, the rule of Rab would coincide with that given in the name of Rebbi Yose (the Tanna) in the next sentence.] but not homiletics. It is stated in the name of Rebbi Yose: He may repeat known rules but he may not expound [Going into the details and general rules behind the simple casuistic statements of the Mishnah; that requires individual mental effort.] the Mishnah. Some want to say, only that he may not mention the Divine Name [This is a problem only in prayer, not in study where the Name is never pronounced even in quotes from the Bible.] . Rebbi Zeïra asked before Rebbi Yasa: Did my teacher not prepare his lecture together with Rebbi Abun in the night? He said, yes. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba prepared his lecture together with his son Rebbi Neḥemiah in the night. The next morning he said, anybody who has to do should go and do it [Note that all Amoraïm involved here are originally Babylonians, but this may be a coincidence. The point seems to be that in the night, when immersion is dangerous, the position of a baäl qeri is the same as one who is at a place with no water. While the sources do not discuss the position of Torah study at a place without water, it seems from here and the story about Rebbi Yose in the paragraph following the next that in the night one never goes for the immersion required and that, therefore, all involved here may study Torah during the night and immerse themselves in the morning before prayers.] .

It happened that someone was reading the Torah in Nsebin [Nisibis, a town in northern Mesopotamia, today on the border between Syria and Turkey, known as seat of the family Ben Bathyra from at least the start of the Common Era. The authority quoted here is R. Yehuda ben Bathyra II, a student of R. Aqiba. The reader was reading the Torah in the synagogue. In the parallel in the Babli (Berakhot 22a), the reason is given that God’s word is compared to fire and fire cannot become impure.] ; when he came to the Divine Name he started to stutter. Rebbi Yehudah ben Bathyra told him: Open your mouth and let your words shine because words of the .Torah cannot receive impurity. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said: There they act following Rebbi Illaï regarding the first shearing [It has to be given to the Cohen, Deut. 18:4. While it is not spelled out in the Pentateuch that this is an obligation only on sheep owners in Israel, “there” in Babylonia one did not give first shearings to the Cohen. The entire statement is quoted in the Babli (Berakhot 22a) in the formulation “people follow these three”, in the name of Rav Naḥman bar Isaac, a Babylonian contemporary of R. Jacob bar Aḥa.] , following Rebbi Josiah [Tanna of the fourth generation, student of R. Ismael, from the town of Huẓal in Babylonia, a contemporary of R. Yehuda ben Bathyra II. All his traditions are from the school of R. Ismael.] regarding kilaim [The prohibition of planting or sowing several species together. The special rules for kilaim in a vineyard are based on Deut. 22:9: “Do not sow your vineyard kilaim”. Usually, a vineyard is not sown but planted; R. Josiah therefore restricts the prohibition to the case where even the vines are grown from seeds sown, not planted one by one in separate places.] in the vineyard, and following Rebbi Yehudah ben Bathyra regarding people with qeri. Following Rebbi Illaï regarding the first shearing. as we have stated: “Rebbi Illaï said: The first shearing applies only in the Land.” Following Rebbi Josiah regarding kilaim as it is stated: “One is never guilty unless one sowed wheat, barley, and grape kernels falling from the same hand.” Following Rebbi Yehudah ben Bathyra regarding people with qeri as it is stated: “Rebbi Yehudah ben Bathyra says, words of the Torah cannot receive impurity.”

Rebbi Yose bar Ḥalaphta came on a footpath [Latin semita (the Rome ms. has איסרטא, strata “a paved [street].”) This story belongs to the discussion of the paragraph before the last and shows that in the minds of the people the original intention of the ordinance requiring washing was inverted, that instead of “fencing off Israel from sin” it became a ritual in the minds of the uneducated with which one could wash off even adultery with a menstruating women, combining a capital crime with one punishable by extirpation. Hence, the story supports Rebbi Yehudah ben Bathyra who negates the importance of the ritual even for public reading of the Torah, not only for Torah study.] in the night and a donkey driver was walking after him along a ditch. He said to him: This man must wash. He said to him: Do not imperil yourself. He said to him: This man must wash because of a menstruating, married woman. Even so he said to him: Do not imperil yourself. Since he did not listen to him he said: May this man descend and not ascend. And that happened to him.

Rebbi Yose ben Yose [One of the last Galilean Amoraïm. It is not known whether he is identical with the poet of the same name, the first of the synagogal poets known by name; neither is it clear whether his name indicates that he was a posthumous child (cf. E. and H. Guggenheimer, Etymologisches Lexikon der jüdischen Familiennamen, Saur, München 1996, p. xviii).] came on a ship. He saw one who was tying a rope around himself in order to descend [From the ship to the ocean in order to wash. This story makes clear that the washing after sexual intercourse was general practice in Israel down to the time of edition of the Jerusalem Talmud. Its time is six generations after the preceding story. It negates the negative moral implications of the preceding story but retains its emphasis on avoiding life-threatening situations.] and wash. He said to him: Do not endanger your life. He said to him: This one needs to eat. He said to him: eat! This man needs to drink. He said to him: drink! When they came to the harbor [Greek λιμήν.] , he said to him: There [On the high seas. The problem was not that one may not eat before washing but that one is not allowed to pronounce the Divine Name and, therefore, is unable to utter the benedictions before eating.] I permitted it only because of danger to your life but here this man may not taste anything before he washes.

Rebbi Yannai [Rebbi Yannai, from the first generation of Amoraïm, makes it clear that essentially nobody uses the miqweh for the immersion of qeri; either one uses a regular bath or a running stream or the sea (whose total volume is certainly greater than 40 sĕa.) The parallel in the Babli (Berakhot 22a) has only the first part of the statement and no hint of using running water. Running water is required for the cleansing of the male with gonorrhea (Lev. 15:13).] said: I heard that some take it lightly and some are stringent and every one who is stringent lives a long, good life. Some take it lightly by washing in drawn water; some are stringent to immerse themselves in running water.

MISHNAH: If someone was standing and praying [The formal Amidah.] when he remembered that he had qeri, he should not stop but shorten his prayer. If he descended to immerse himself, if he can ascend, get dressed, and recite [The Shema‘. The leniency mentioned here is not only if otherwise the time for Shema‘ would pass but even for the usage of the very religious (Chapter 1, Note 155) even though it is totally impossible to pray the Amidah while immersed in the water and, therefore, one cannot completely follow the practice of the very religious.] by the time of sunrise he should ascend, get dressed, and recite; otherwise, he should cover himself with water and recite. He should cover himself neither with stinking water nor with steeping water unless he diluted them with water. How much does one have to remove oneself from these and excrement? Four cubits.

HALAKHAH: The Mishnah refers to someone in public, but if he is alone he interrupts following Rebbi Meïr [Since Mishnah 4 stated that he may not pronounce any benediction and the Amidah is composed of benedictions, it is clear that Mishnah 4 forbids formal praying. Both Mishnah 4 and Mishnah 5 are anonymous; an anonymous Mishnah is always supposed to represent the ideas of Rebbi Meïr since the latter’s collection was the basis of Rebbi’s edition of the Mishnah. To avoid two contradicting Mishnayot, it is spelled out here that the public embarrassment that would be caused by the rule of Mishnah 4 has to be avoided, see Halakhah 1, note 119. The opinion of R. Yehudah is given in Mishnah 4.] . But following Rebbi Yehudah he does not interrupt even when alone, on condition that he have no water to immerse himself. But if he has water to immerse himself even Rebbi Yehudah agrees that he must interrupt.

About a sick person who had intercourse, Rebbi Ammi said: If he caused it by himself, let him immerse himself and die [Obviously, that is an exaggeration since it was shown earlier that even an adulterer should not expose himself to danger because of this immersion; it means simply: let him be inconvenienced.] ; if it was forced upon him one does not bother him [It is difficult to know what “forced intercourse” means. Any possible interpretation depends on the problem discussed in the preceding Halakhah, whether qeri comes only from intercourse or also from involuntary emissions. If the second case is accepted, “forced” does not speak of intercourse but only of involuntary emissions. In the second case, one cannot say that one speaks of a sick man fulfilling his marital duties even if it hurts him since in that case he is free from these duties. Even if he was seduced by his wife, there is really no intercourse against one’s will. Hence, one has to conclude that all authorities here decide that involuntary emissions require immersion in water.] . Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Zavda: One does not bother him in any case. A sick person [This second paragraph clearly is independent of the previous statements since it contradicts them. It represents the consensus of the editors of the Yerushalmi. In the parallel of the Babli (Berakhot 22b), Rava reports that any מרגיל needs 40 seah. Since the immersion was not practiced in Babylonia, this statement is purely historical or theoretical; the difference between Babylonia and Israel was in the essence of this immersion and not in little details.] who does it habitually [In the Babli (22a), Rashi explains מרגיל by: “he draws qeri upon himself by having intercourse.” A strictly grammatical explanation would be: “he causes it to be usual”. However, such a translation would require three categories: 1) one who runs after sex, 2) a normal person, 3) a sick person. Since only two categories are mentioned where one would expect three, Rashi’s explanation is the only consistent one even if it does not explain the particular verb form.] needs nine qab, a healthy person who does it habitually needs 40 sĕah. A sick person forced, one does not bother him. A healthy person forced needs nine qab.

Rebbi Zevadiah, the son of Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi, in the name of Rebbi Jonah: In a city whose well is far away, he may recite the Shema‘, then descends and immerses himself, ascends and prays. If he is blind [This translation is not given by any commentator. Usually, מסוים means “definite, outstanding”, from the verbal root swm, but this makes no sense here. In other Talmudic passages “an outstanding man” means a particularly pious one and it is unimaginable that a pious man should claim for himself exemption from some religious duty. Hence, the derivation from the root sm’ “to blind”, in the passive “to be blinded”, makes much more sense.] they made him like a far-away well.

New Section. “Otherwise, he should cover himself with water and recite.” [Quote from the Mishnah.] The Mishnah deals with opaque water, but in clear water it is forbidden [Since prayer is forbidden if the genitals are uncovered. (A different tradition is given in Babli Berakhot 25b).] . And if he is able to make it opaque by stirring with his feet he may make it opaque.

It is stated: One removes himself [In order to pray or to recite Shema‘.] from human excrement four cubits and from dog’s excrement four cubits, the latter when it is given on skins [Antique technology of making leather from skins required that the skins were steeped in water containing dog’s excrement for a lengthy period of time. The steeping water had a horrible smell. This baraita explains that “steeping water” in the Mishnah refers to tanner’s steeping water and not to launderer’s steeping water that simply does not smell good. This statement is from Tosephta Berakhot 2:16; the Babli (25a) has a different baraita that refers to the paragraph after the next one here.] . Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: One must remove hinself four cubits from a stinking carcass. Rebbi Avina said: Does not the Mishnah say all this : “How much does one have to remove himself from these and excrement? Four cubits.” Rebbi Ammi in the name of Rebbi Shammai [The tradition of names is impossible since Rebbi Shammai was an Amora of the fifth and last generation in Galilee; he cannot be the author of a tradition of a third generation Amora. The paragraph is quoted by R. Asher ben Yeḥiël (Rosh Berakhot, Chap. 3, #44) in the name of Rebbi Simlaï (without mention of Rebbi Ammi), a preacher and Amora of the first generation.] : Explain it by steeping water of launderers. Rebbi Mani [Rebbi Mani, Mana, the first. Launderers’ steeping water does not smell so badly that it would need a special entry in the Mishnah. He is a contemporary of Rebbi Simlaï, not Rebbi Ammi.] said to him: About steeping waters of launderers, we have stated: “neither with stinking water nor with steeping water.”

It is stated: One removes himself four cubits from excrement and urine of a toddler who can eat grain the volume of an olive [In one meal, which in the Babli (Sukkah 42b) is defined as the time a grown-up can eat half a stuffed pitta. The Yerushalmi does not give a time limit.] , but if he cannot yet eat grain the volume of an olive one does not need to remove himself four cubits either from his excrement or from his urine. They asked before Rebbi Abbahu: Why does one separate himself from his excrement and urine? He said to them, because his thoughts are evil. They said to him: But is not he too young? He said to them, is it not written (Gen. 8:21): “For the inclination of man’s heart is evil from his youth?” Rebbi Yudan said, it is written “from his awakening [The word נעוּריו, even though it has a long vowel ū, is written defective in the Bible; hence, it can be vocalized נִעֲרָיו “his awakenings”, not only puberty, the sexual awakening usually referred to by the root נער but also the first awakening of the baby during birth. According to Rebbi Abbahu, the awakening comes only when the baby is weaned.] ”, from the moment that the awakes and enters the world.

Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina said: One removes himself four cubits from animal dung. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, if it is soft, but only from donkeys. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, if it [The donkey. The statements of Rebbis Samuel bar Rav Isaac and Ḥiyya bar Abba restrict the general statement of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina to one specific case.] arrived from a trip. Levi said, one removes himself four cubits from the excrement of a pig. And it was stated: One removes himself four cubits from the excrement of a pig [In the Babli (25a), the excrement of a pig is deemed unacceptable only if it is used in tanning. It seems that in Israel no pig excrement was used in tanning.] , four cubits from the excrement of a marten [This statement is taken by Medieval commentators to apply also to excrement of cats.] , four cubits from the excrement of chickens. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Huna: Only from red [Some commentators prefer to understand “Edomite”, but the meaning “red” is preferable since red chickens are mentioned in Babli Avodah zarah 14b as a separate kind. All these are singled out for their obnoxious smell.] ones.

It is stated: One removes himself four cubits from a bad smell [It is clear from the following that one talks of a source of bad smell which can be identified and seen. In the Babli (25a) this is called ריח רע שיש לו עיקר “a bad smell that has a material source.” The opinion of the Yerushalmi corresponds in the Babli to the minority opinion of Rav Ḥisda.] . Rebbi Ammi said, four cubits from the end of the bad smell. That means behind his back, but in front of him until he can no longer see it. Like that of Rebbi Lia and his colleagues who were sitting in front of a hostelry [Greek πανδοκεῖον (also πανδοκίον) “inn”. It is difficult to see what is so bad about a hostelry. Maybe they were sitting close to the outhouse.] in the night. They said, may one say words of Torah? He said to them: If it were daytime, we would see what is before us. But [The text is elliptic, but we do not know what is missing. Generally, ברם means either “on the other hand” or “in addition”.] like that it is forbidden.

It is stated: One must remove himself four cubits from a chamberpot, be it used for excrement or for urine [Since in the preceding paragraph one dealt with visible excrement, it follows that in this entire paragraph we are dealing with a chamberpot used at night which is empty at present but still smells from its prior use. The Tosephta (Berakhot 2:16) is quite explicit: “A chamberpot with him in the house, he has to remove himself four cubits.” The Babli (25a) deals separately with full and empty chamberpots.] . If it is before the bed, if he put some water in the pot he may recite [The Shema‘.] , otherwise he may not recite. Rebbi Zakkai [Rebbi Zakkai the First, Tanna of the fifth generation, contemporary of Rebbi.] said, if he put a quartarius [A quarter of a log of .533 liter or about 4.5 fl. oz. U.S.] of water in, he may recite; otherwise, he may not recite. How many corresponding quartarii? One quartarius, corresponding to one quartarius [As much water as was the volume of urine or excrement in the last use.] , be the vessel small or large. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, if it stands behind the bed he may recite, before the bed he may not recite. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, even in a dining hall [Latin triclinium, from Greek τρικλίνιον “dining room”, a hall of three dining couches arranged in U-shape.] large ten-by-ten [Probably 10 by 10 cubits, which gives a diagonal distance of 14 cubits, taken as an example. The Babli (25a) speaks of a “dining hall of 100 cubits” where “cubits” stands for “square cubits”. [The use of “cubit” for “square cubit” is frequent in Yerushalmi Kilaim.]] he may not recite until he covers it up or until he puts it under the couch. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Rebbi Ḥanina Tortayya [A student of Rebbi Yoḥanan; his birthplace, Torta, has not been identified. His decision is also quoted in the Babli as decision of the earlier generations, later overruled by Rava (bar Joseph bar Ḥama), the leader of the fifth generation of Amoraïm in Babylonia.] ruled following Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar.

Rebbi Benjamin ben Yephet [A student of Rebbi Yoḥanan. Rebbi Zeïra is on record (Babli Berakhot 38b, Yerushalmi Pesaḥim 2:5) that R. Benjamin is not trustworthy as witness to the opinions of Rebbi Yoḥanan. His statement is quoted in the Babli (25b) as original Babylonian tradition.] in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan: A minute amount of excrement can be eliminated by spit. Rebbi Zeïra and Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi were sitting; they saw some excrement. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi got up and spat on it. Rebbi Zeïra said to him: From the sea to the pan [Greek τήγανον. Rashi (Babli Qiddushin 44a) and ‘Arukh (1 טגן) explain this expression to mean: “immediately”, like a fish that has to be fried immediately before it spoils. Most commentators explain that R. Zeïra declares the entire rule invalid since spit dries quickly and afterwards is useless. The Babli avoids the problem by allowing only thick spit, probably from the bronchiae, which does not evaporate. One may consider the treatment of the Babli as answer to R. Zeïra’s criticism.] !

[After discussing what may or may not be put under one’s bed, one continues with the case of holy scrolls in one’s room, first under the bed and then in the room.] A chest full of scrolls one may put under the head of the bed but one may not put it under the foot end of the bed. Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Ḥuna: But only if the bed is 10 hand-breadths [A ṭefaḥ (hand-breadth) is one-sixth of a cubit. The basic information one has about length is that the distance one may travel from a town on Sabbath is one mil or 2000 cubits. If the mil is taken to be the traditional 1111m = 3648 feet then a cubit is 1.824 ft and a ṭefaḥ is 3.65 inches. (If the mil is taken to be an unlikely Roman mile of 1473.2m = 4833.33 ft, then a cubit is 2.417 ft and a ṭefaḥ is 4.836 inches.) Another approach is based on Mishnah Kelim 17:11 which reports an opinion that fluid measures are Roman. The Babli (Pesaḥim 109 a/b) defines 40 seah as three cubic cubits. By the data quoted in note 164, the cubit would be 55.47 cm and the ṭefaḥ 9.25 cm or 3.64 in. Anything more than 10 ṭefaḥ above the ground is considered to be in another domain. This reason also applies to the next paragraph.] high, and only if the ropes of the bed do not touch the chest. Rebbi Yasa taught the ruling of Rebbi Ḥuna in the town of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac.

A person should not have sexual intercourse when there is a Torah scroll with him in the room. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: it is permitted if it was wrapped in a wrapper or if it was in a window opening that is ten hand-breadths above the ground. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi made a small curtain [Diminutive of כילה “curtain”. (The parallel statement in the Babli, Berakhot 25b, states the dangers of sexual intercourse in the presence of a Torah scroll; its connection with the preceding discussion of praying in presence of a chamberpot can be understood only as a commentary on the Yerushalmi.)] for it.

A person should not sit on a low bench [Latin subsellium “bench”.] on which a Torah scroll was placed. It happened that Rebbi Eliezer sat down on a low bench on which a Torah scroll was placed and he recoiled from it as one recoils before a snake [Cf. Massekhet Soferim 3:13, and Massekhet Sefer Torah 3:10 (where it says “he got up as if bitten by a snake”); also quoted in Babli Menaḥot 32b. The reason given is the verse (Lev. 26:6): “You shall fear My holy things.” This is then qualified that one may not sit on a bench on which there is a Torah scroll, but if the scroll is on a separate table or chair, there is no minimum distance to be kept.] . If it was placed on something other, it is permitted. How far? Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Ḥuna: One handbreadth. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: Anything.

A double sack [Greek δισάκκιον, “saddle bag”, a sack made to be carried by a donkey (or horse) hanging down on both sides of the animal. The rule is inserted here in the sequence of rules dealing with the respect due to holy things. The respect shown here is that the sack may not be put on the animal but must be carried on the person even if the latter is riding.] full of scrolls or if there were in it bones of a dead person [For reburial in an ossuary in a cave.] , one carries it on his back and rides.

Tefillin one may hang on the headboard of the bed but one may not hang them at the foot end of the bed [For the same reason as before, to show respect.] . Rebbi Samuel [Since he was a student of R. Abbahu and sometimes student of R. Zeïra, the chain of transmission here are four uninterrupted generations. It seems that only R. Samuel made a formal statement out of an informal tradition; however, in the Babli (24a) the statement is in the name of R. Ḥanina himself.] , Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Rebbi did hang his tefillin on the headboard of his bed. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: But only that he should not do in the way of makers of palm leaf baskets but tefillin on top and the straps on the bottom [In the interpretation of J. Levy, basket makers put their wares on a rope from which they are hanging down. Tefillin should never hang down. [While דיקולא are palm-leaf baskets, the Latin ending -arius is suspect. It might be better to derive the word from Latin collare, collarium “neck chain, collar”, with the prefix די meaning either “double” or being the Aramaic relative pronoun (E. G.). Tefillin should not hang as a pendant from its chain.] In the Babli (24a), this is a rejected opinion. One requires there that the tefillin be put in a pouch, the pouch then may be hung at the head of the bed.] .

Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Shaul [An Amora of the first generation, of the collectors of baraitot. In the Babli, he mostly appears as Rebbi Taḥlipha ben Shaul. The section here is a continuation of the discussion of respect due to either places of holiness (the synagogue) or acts of holiness (prayer).] stated: It is a bad sign if one lets wind during one’s prayer. That means on one’s bottom, but not on one’s top. This parallels what Rebbi Ḥanina said: I saw Rebbi yawning, belching, putting his hand on his mouth, but not spitting [In the Babli (24a/b), R. Ḥanina reports that he saw Rebbi spitting; this is permitted in the Babli only for people who were disgusted if they had to spit into their garments.] . Rebbi Yoḥanan said, one may even spit so that one’s cup [I. e., one’s mouth.] should be clean; forward is forbidden, behind oneself is permitted [In the Babli (24b) this is reported as an act of Rav Ashi, the first editor of the Babylonian Talmud. Its theoretical justification must be sought here in the Yerushalmi.] . To one’s right is forbidden, to one’s left is permitted; that is what is written (Ps. 91: 7): “On your left hand side will fall a thousand. [As usual, the real argument is from the later part of the verse which is not quoted: “On your left hand side will fall a thousand, but ten thousand on your right hand side.” Hence, the right hand side is ten times as important as the left hand side.] ” Everybody agrees about one who spits toward the stele [Greek στήλη. The stele in the synagogue was the pulpit on which the Torah scroll was laid for reading and was a place of particular holiness [Cf. Y. Brand, Iẓṭeli n, Lĕšōnēnū 32 (5728), 276–277]. This passage appears in many corrupt versions in early medieval rabbinic authors (e. g., R. Abraham bar David and the student of Rabbenu Jonah) and has given rise to many phantastic conjectures.] , that he is forbidden to do so. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi says, he who spits in the synagogue is like one who spits into his own eye [A parallel in the Babli (24b) states “he is as if he spat out before the king.”] . Rebbi Jonah spat and rubbed out. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Samuel bar Ḥalaphta in the name of Rav Ada bar Aḥava: He who prayed should not spit until he walked four cubits. Rebbi Yose bar Rebbi Abun said, similarly he who spat should not pray until he walked four cubits.

Similarly, he who urinates should not pray until he walks four cubits [In the Tosephta (Berakhot 2:19), the language is more restrictive: “A person should not urinate at the place where he prays unless he removes himself four cubits. Once he urinated he should not pray unless he removed himself four cubits. If it is dry or absorbed (in the earth) it is permitted.” This text is the basis of the discussion of the Babli (Megillah 27b) but not of the Yerushalmi.] . Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said: not only that he walks four cubits but even if he waits corresponding to a walk of four cubits. Rebbi Ammi said, if you say that he is forbidden until he removes himself four cubits, I say that maybe somebody else came and urinated there [And there is no place in the world where he could pray. The Babli (Berakhot 25a) explicitly rules out this argument and states that one is forbidden only at a place where certainly somebody urinated and the moisture is still recognizable.] .

Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: Excrement until it is hardened like bone, urine all the time it makes moist [This refers to the earlier statement that one has to remove himself from excrement until he no longer sees it, and from urine four cubits. The question is how long excrement legally is in its state. In the Babli (25a), the statement of Samuel/R. Yoḥanan is attributed to Rav by Rav Yehudah and Rebbi Abba’s statement about urine to Samuel/Rebbi Yoḥanan. There is no difference between the Talmudim in praxi for urine but the conclusion, that excrement is forbidden even if it is hard like bone, while supported there in the name of R. Yoḥanan, is finally rejected as a matter of common practice.] . Ganiva [A colleague of Rav in Babylonia. He was an extreme political opponent of the then Resh Galuta and was executed by the Persian king as a trouble maker (without the intervention of the Resh Galuta.) His statement refers to urine and is quoted as such in the Babli (25a).] said: All the time that its impression is visible. Samuel said: Until its [Refers to excrement only.] surface is hardened. Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan: Until its surface is hardened. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rav: Excrement is forbidden even if it is hard like bone. Samuel said: Until its surface is hardened. Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan: Until its surface is hardened [The seeming repetition shows that Rebbi Zeïra formulated the entire statement concerning the opinions of Rav, Samuel, and R. Yoḥanan. In the first half, the statements of Rebbi Abba, Samuel, and Rebbi Yoḥanan are three independent statements.] . Ḥizqiah said: Rebbi Abba is more restrictive for urine than for excrement? Rebbi Mana said to him: From that of Ganiva [“As long as it is recognizable” applies both to excrement and to urine. Since excrement is recognizable even if it is hard as bone (Rome ms.: “hard as wood”), it remains forbidden.] ; he said to him: Even if it is hard like bone it is forbidden because its matter exists; urine’s matter no longer exists [As recognizable entity.]

MISHNAH: The person with gonorrhea who had an emission of semen, as well as a menstruating woman who lost semen, and the woman who started menstruating while having intercourse, need immersion, but Rebbi Yehudah frees them [It is explained in Lev. 15 that the man with gonorrhea makes everything around himself impure and cannot be become pure except by a lengthy procedure. Similarly, the menstruating woman needs at least seven days for her purification. If any of these is polluted by the minor impurity of qeri as explained in the preceding halakhah, any immersion for qeri has no influence on the severe impurity already existing (or the one additional in the case of the woman who notices her period while she is already impure by having intercourse). Rebbi Yehudah notes that since the immersion for qeri has no practical consequences, it is not needed. The other sages seem to think that since the immersion does not need miqweh or flowing water and since it is needed to let the persons pray it is of a completely different character and independent of the other impurities. Since the woman noticing her period during intercourse has to stop it immediately, even before emission of semen, it is clear that her impurity is not the Biblical one described in Lev. 15:16–18 but the rabbinic one of qeri.]

HALAKHAH: So far the person with gonorrhea who had an emission of semen; is it good for anything if the person immerses himself who had an emission and afterwards has an episode of gonorrhea? We hear it from this: “The woman who started menstruating while having intercourse needs immersion, but Rebbi Yehudah frees her. [In both cases, the impurity of qeri preceded the severe Biblical impurity and, nevertheless, the disagreement between the majority and Rebbi Yehudah is the same as when the severe impurity precedes qeri. This particular case, which is not in the Mishnah, is treated in Babli 26a where it is stated explicitly not only that Rebbi Yehudah does not require immersion but that the majority require it.] ”

What is Rebbi Yehudah’s reason? Is it because what would one profit if he immersed himself [Since the person remains impure as before.] or whether there is a name for light impurity in the presence of severe impurity [Does the severe impurity eliminate the minor impurity, or does it simply add another level of impurity?] ? What is the difference between these possibilities? If he saw qeri, if you say what would one profit if he immersed himself, he would profit [He eliminates the rabbinic prohibition against studying Torah and reciting Shema‘ without washing.] ! Hence, the only reason is that there is no name for light impurity in the presence of severe impurity!

That is if the light impurity came at the end. Is it even if the severe impurity came at the end [Does the severe impurity add to the minor impurity or does it supersede the minor impurity?] ? We may understand it from this: “The woman who started menstruating while having intercourse needs immersion, but Rebbi Yehudah frees her.” That means, one case is like the other case.

Berakhot3